SAN ANDREAS

The disaster movie genre is one that has long fallen into something of a rut ,not that that they can’t still be fun, but once you’ve seen one you can safely say you’ve seen them all. As an example of this let’s see if San Andreas ticks some of the common boxes. Let’s see, we have Dwayne Johnson as a single dad – check. A cowardly stepfather who fails to step up at the moment of crisis – check. An expert (Paul Giamatti) who is there to stare into the camera while making dramatic statement – check. A family who reconnect through a natural disaster -check. This is not to say of course that the film isn’t enjoyable, the effects are very nicely done and there is genuine ingenuity in gradually turning San Francisco into a warped jigsaw puzzle (one of my particular favourites is a Navy warship wedged bridge-like between two buildings) and the tsunami set piece is very well done. Nor are the clichés themselves wholly without merit- although that merit may not be what the filmmakers intended. It’s difficult not to laugh (and quite a few of the audience viewed the movie did) at dialogue delivered with such patent sincerity with such ‘oh so serious’ expressions. Some of the highlights have to be Blake (Alexandra Daddario) and Ben (Hugo Johnston-Burt) sharing an out-of-nowhere, and yet still somehow completely predicable kiss. And Ray (Dwayne Johnson) and Emma (Carla Gugino) stopping in the middle of the chaos to analyse why their marriage fell apart. I suppose my main problem with San Andreas is that it takes itself far too seriously, there are moments of dry humour and cheesy puns that it really feels the film could have used more of. Final Verdict 5/10 enjoyable but it doesn’t do anything to shake up the disaster movie genre.

Read More

Unknown 15:18  No comment

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD

SYNOPSIS Haunted by his past Max (Tom Hardy) tries to survive in a brutal world of warlords and scavengers. I’ve long thought of the apocalyptic genre as one of the most boring, “oh look, another dry wasteland, haven’t seen that one before”. So going into Mad Max: Fury Road, having not seen the original Mad Max, I admit my expectations were not particularly high. One thing Fury Road, however, cannot be accused of is being visually dull. Whether it’s the villain going into battle with full drum and electric guitar compliment or his henchmen swinging acrobatically from poles like some evil cirque du solei. At no point is nothing interesting happening in this film. As with Kingsmen something that works in Fury Road’s favour is the cast taking things entirely seriously; Tom Hardy (Mad Max ) and Charlize Theron (Imperator Furiosa …try saying that three times fast) both treat every over the top scenario as deadly serious , as such, their performances stand out much more than they would otherwise. The villain they’re up against Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne who starred in the original Mad Max) manages to convey real menace despite looking like a rock star whose years of drink and drugs has caught up to him (think Keith Richards with white hair). Everything about this film can best described as high octane, the action scenes take things up to eleven and the use of practical stunt work, rather than CGI, makes the film stand out from the usual CGI ridden fair and gives the action scenes a more raw exciting feeling. Given that many of these stunts involve people hanging precariously from cars and trucks (one reason you know Max is Mad is that at no point in this film does he wear a seat belt) this is actually quite a bold decision by the film makers and one that has paid off. FINAL VERDICT 8/10 given the spate of bland remakes in recent years it’s nice to see a film which pays homage to the original while standing out in its own right.

Read More

Unknown 16:35  No comment

SPOOKS THE GREATER GOOD

SYNOPSIS –After a dangerous terrorist escapes Mi15 Custody a former agent is contacted by his mentor to find a traitor lurking within their midst It is a rare thing for a television series to make the leap to the big screen. This does not mean, of course, that is unheard of, the Mission Impossible franchise has proved to be more successful than its makers thought. On this side of the pond things are rather less exciting with the Avengers (no not that one) flopping badly (and no wonder!). On the one hand it’s easy to see why Spooks is a good choice for the big screen adaptation; the TV series, which ran from May 2002 till October 2011 on the BBC, told an exciting story of MI5 agents /spies which, in the current climate can certainly be said to hold resonance. Having not watched the tv show I was naturally curious to see whether I would be able to get interested in the story and characters or become hopelessly lost. I wasn’t lost; the film is accessible to a new audience although some backstories could have been fleshed out. The problem with Spooks is that it tries far too hard to prove its film credentials and, in the process, veers into the silly zone at some critical points. Indeed the ending seems so rushed and frantic that it looks like a misguided attempt to imitate that other tv series, 24, which does not match the tone of the rest of the film in the slightest. This is a pity because for much of the film the restrained tone, with a few action scenes here and there, works to the film’s advantage. The cloak and dagger intrigue is much more interesting than a clichéd gun battle (although we do get the constantly recycled plotline of a hunt for a mole inside the organisation). What we get then is a mostly effective spy thriller that sadly goes off the rails slightly towards the end, although to be fair the action scenes are still effectively shot. An open ending leaves it interesting to see if a future sequel might correct the missteps of this original attempt. FINAL VERDICT 7/10 a good thriller that successfully translates the world of the TV shows to the big screen.

Read More

Unknown 03:03  No comment